IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3fi47 OF 2022 Between: 1. Uppara RamalingappA, S/o Late Uppara Pedda Urukundappa, Aged about 68 years, R/o H.No.5-465, Hanuman Nagar, Adoni Town, Kurnool District. 2. Uppara Chinna Eranna, S/o Late Uppara Pedda Urukundappa, Aged about 50 years, R/o Kuruva Street, Peddakadubur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO Peddakadubur PS, Rep through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amarvathi, Guntur District. 2. Uppara Sivanna, S/o Late Uppara Pedda Urukundappa, Aged about 65 years, R/o Peddakadubur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the C.C.No.692/2021 (FIR No.88/2019, dated 26.09.2019 Peddakadubur Police Station, Kurnool District) on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court at Adoni I.A, NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated praying that in the in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in No.88/2019, dated 26.09.2019 Peddakadubur Police Station, Kurnool District) on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court at Adoni. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 C.C.No.692/2021 (FIR Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to VACATE the interim order dated 06-05-2022 grated in CrI.P.No. 3642 of 2022 to meet ends of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M R K CHAKRAVARTHY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri B R S KALYAN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: 1 APHC010241522022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA l2. [3396] CRIMINAL PETITION No.3642/2022 Between: Uppara Ramalingappa and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.B RS KALYAN REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure^ 1973 seeking to quash the Proceedings against them in CC No.692 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy learned counsel for the Petitioners/A. 1 and A.2, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State and Sri B.R.S.Kalyan Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. for short 'the Code' 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/A. 1 nothing to do respondent No.2 filed a Civil Learned counsel submits petitioners for settlement of the and A.2 are erroneously implicated in this false case and they have with the alleged offences, it is further submitted that Suit in OS No.280 of 2018 that the said suit matter in the suit. and it is pending adjudication, was filed with a view to force the as an arm-twist, the against the Petitioners. Learned present criminal case has been lodged counsel would submit that the civil dispute was case and that the main issues are civil in nature. Learned converted into a criminal counsel would submit that the No.278 of 2019 for charge sheet would show that son of Petitioner No. 1/A. 1 also filed a civil suit in OS of the witnesses in the Learned Magistrate cognizance for the offences under permanent injunction. The statements all are interested witnesses, mind, has taken without application of judicial Sections 420 and 468 Learned counsel would further inordinate delay, but case. The alleged forged document i respondent No.2 did not read with 34 IPC and iissued process to the Petitioners. submit that the complaint was made with before registration of the an no primary enquiry was conducted IS not recovered from possess any land out of the respondent No.2 and that ancestral property. Learned away his land to the Petitioners. A.2 and respondent No.2 petitioners occurred in the year of their father in the year the date of death of the counsel submits that Learned counsel would submit respondent No.2 has sold that Petitioners/A. 1 and ot the father of the are brothers. The date of death 2013. Respondent No.2 2020. Learned got registered the date of death counsel would further submit that father of even mentioned in OS No.280 of 2018. the Petitioners and respondent No.2 has not Learned counsel would argue that the prosecution did not chose to collect the real death certificate to believe the plea of forgery and to believe that the forgery has not taken place in the civil suit. In the absence of any allegations against the Petitioners, continuing the criminal proceedings against them is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is serious dispute between the parties with regard to the date of death of their father. It is the allegation that Petitioners have created an un-registered gift deed in the year 2015 though their father died in the year 2013. Apart from that, they have obtained pattadar passbooks. Learned counsel would submit that basing on the statements made by the petitioners before the Tahsildar, he cancelled the passbooks. Learned counsel would submit that simply because a civil suit is pending between the parties is not a ground for quashment of a criminal case. There is a guilty intention on the part of the accused in creating a fake death certificate. Subsequently, they have also created a forged document itself attracts the ingredients of the offences lodged against them. Learned counsel would submit that the CC is of the year 2021 and the contentions raised in the present criminal petitions are matter of trial. Learned counsel finally submits that there grounds for quashment of the case against the Petitioners and prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. are no 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are serious allegations against the Petitioners and civil cases are pending between the parties. It is submitted that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 envisages that inherent powers of the High Court to make orders as or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the of the Code makes it clear that the are not limited or affected Code so as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure in Section 482 of the Code jurisdiction is not or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the ends ofjustice. A court while sitting functioning as a court of appeal case. These powers must be invoked for law or glaring injustice, which compelling reasons of abuse of process of are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. Specific circumstances present. To identify these specific ci warranting the invocation of the provision must be circumstances, it is essential to discuss some Apex Court in State ofHaryana it is considered as the guiding torch in the precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble and others v. Bhajan/a! and others^ i application of Section 482 of the circumstances are spelt out as follows; Code. At Paragraphs-102 and 103, the Pro^silfTme7jnjdeTc£T^ 'Z^teZ°ZyZwTZ °Oustice, though itZZtZZ we ^AIR 1992 SC 604 ■■ ^ (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima fade constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview ofSection 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizabie offence, investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. no (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievanceof the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with maia fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciouslyinstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and persona! grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not ZlricI- the court to act according to its whim (emphasis supplied) State of West Bengal & Anr^. or 8. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. V. Paragraph 5.5. and Paragraph-11 read as under: 5.5 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021 see Online se 315) a three Judge Bench of this Court iaid down following principles of law:- the "5.7 From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i)-Police has the statutory right and duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; relevant provisions of the ti) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the. Hi) However, in cases where no cognizable offence disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; cognizable offences; or offence of any kind is rv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest ofrare cases'. (The rarest ofrare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, by this Court); as explained previously V) White examining an FIR/compiaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise Of the allegations made in the FIR/compiaint; Vi) Criminalproceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a compiaint/FIR should be an exception and a ranty than an ordinary rule; ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the poiice, since the two organs of the State operate in two speciifc spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of Justice orprevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P. C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the poiice are complementary, not overlapping: x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage justice, the Court and the judidai process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Poiice must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application rriade by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameter laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan La! (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/poiice to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending tide suit m the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For all these we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof Also, we have no hesitation to hold that a case that school reasons. power permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants In the aforesaid circumstances would result In abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage ofjustice. 9. Keeping in mind, the guiding factors enunciated be scrutinized. supra, present case has to • 10. The primary requirement to make out an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 420 IPC is dishonest/ frauduient intention at the time of inception. In order to appreciate the controversy in a proper perspective, it is beneficial to reproduce Section 415 IPC, which reads as under: ”415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, frauduientiy dishonesdy induces the person so deceived to deliver any person, or to consent that any person shall retain intentionally induces the person so deceived to do anything which he would not do or omit if he or any property to • any property, or or omit to do , ,. , . . ^ere not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat" Expianation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within ' the meaning of this section." 11. To attract the offence under Section 420 IPC, twin conditions are to be complied i.e., dishonest and fraudulent intention. At this juncture, for better understanding, it is relevant to reproduce Sections 24 and 25 IPC, which read as ( under: 24. Dishonesty .-Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gam to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Is said to do that thing "dishonestly." 25. ”Fraudulently."—A person Is said to do a thing fraudulently If he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise." 12. Keeping in mind the settled legal position on the subject matter as cited supra, in the instant case, there are specific allegations levelled Petitioners. against the 13. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record, civil suit filed by respondent No.2 seeking partition is pending between the parties. As rightly put by respondent No.2, the contentions raised in this Criminal Petition are disputed facts in question, which cannot be decided in the Instant quash Petition. There is a verifiable material which of trial. requires investigation at the full length 14. As rightly put by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, that there is a dispute regarding the date of death of the father of the parties. To decide the truth 10 or otherwise of the contentions, the matter the course of trial. This Court, while the Code cannot conduct a Petitioners. In that view, it js not a fit 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. requires elaborate examination during exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of mini trial to decide the culpability attributed against the case for quashment of the proceedings. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Adoni.Kurnool Kurnool District. The Station House Officer, Peddakadubur police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District. One CC to SRI. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. B R S KALYAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] B.Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. nm i \ ■\ HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 i 0 i SEP 2025 ★ ORDER CRLP.No.3642 of 2022 folj DISMISSING THIS CRLP